2011 Triennial Surveillance Review Overview Paper

This paper assesses progress in strengthening Fund surveillance and identifies needed improvements. It differs from past reviews insofar as it: (A) encompasses not only bilateral but also multilateral surveillance; and (B) steps-up external inputs in the form of studies by outside observers, commentaries, and assessment of recommendations by an external advisory group.

This report was prepared by the External Advisory Group (EAG) for the 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR). The Group comprised the following members: Shankar Acharya, Marc Antoine Autheman, Kemal Dervis, Martin Hellwig, Takatoshi Ito, David Li, Pedro Malan, Stephen Pickford, Chukwuma Charles Soludo, Umayya Toukan, and Edwin Truman. The EAG was set up to provide an independent check on staff’s analysis and recommendations which are set out in the 2011 Triennial Surveillance Review—Overview Paper. The EAG contributed in written form and met twice during the course of the Triennial Surveillance Review (TSR)—on April 18 and July 29, 2011—to discuss the direction, emerging findings, and recommendations of the review.

External study prepared by Stephen Pickford, former IMF/World Bank Executive Director for the United Kingdom and former Managing Director of International and Europe at H.M. Treasury and G-20 Finance Deputy, United Kingdom: Surveillance (both bilateral and multilateral) is a key instrument for the Fund’s crisis prevention role, analyzing economic developments and policies at national, regional and global levels. It also identifies risks and vulnerabilities, and forms the main basis for the Fund‘s discussions with policy-makers.

Commentary prepared by Joseph E. Stiglitz, University Professor, Columbia University: Surveillance has widely been viewed as a key instrument by which the IMF ensures member states adhere to the kinds of policies which promote global economic stability and through which the global macroeconomic coordination necessary for economic stability is achieved. Indeed, as Ocampo (2011) notes, "...the first objective of this institution is to provide 'the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary problems.'" But there is also widespread agreement that there are major shortfalls in the achievement of these lofty objectives. Part of the problem has been in the view that countries—particularly those not borrowing from the fund—lack incentives to comply with the advice that would achieve such stability. Since those countries include virtually all of the systemically significant countries, if surveillance has an impact on global stability (as opposed to the well-being of particular countries) it is only the result of (i) a process of consensus building in which actions which they might previously have thought to not be in their interest were in fact in their national interest; or (ii) enough small countries, each of which is systemically insignificant, are affected in a meaningful enough way so as to have systemically significant effects.

This paper (a) provides a snapshot of the overall value added of Fund‘s surveillance perceived by stakeholders; (b) details where the Fund stands in terms of four operational priorities set out in the 2008 TSR; (c) examines key issues identified in the recent IEO paper on the IMF performance in the run up to the global crisis; and (d) discusses stakeholders' perception on the communication aspects of surveillance.

Commentary prepared by Martin Wolf, Associate Editor & Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times, London: "With countries naturally reluctant to cede any control over their own monetary and fiscal policies, it is likely that the IMF will have as instruments only the powers of analysis, persuasion, and, in Keynes" own favourite words, "ruthless truth-telling". That phrase does not conjure up many memories of any of the many international meetings I have attended. But unless the IMF has the self-confidence to play that role, its deliberations and statements will carry little weight. The Fund requires an independent, respected and clear voice." Mervyn King, 2006.

This paper reviews the 2007 Surveillance Decision and the broader legal framework for surveillance. While the 2007 Surveillance Decision on Bilateral Surveillance over Members’ Policies (thereafter, the 2007 Decision) requires the Fund to review the decision itself, this paper takes a broader view. It recognizes that the 2007 Decision cannot be assessed in isolation from the legal framework it derives from, i.e., the Articles of Agreement, and that a debate on the adequacy of this broader framework is also necessary. The paper therefore discusses the strengths and limitations of the current system as set out in both the Articles of Agreement (primarily, Article IV) and the 2007 Decision and explores options going forward.

External study prepared by John Palmer, Chair, Toronto Leadership Centre, former Superintendent, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Canada, former Deputy Managing Director Monetary Authority of Singapore, former Canadian Managing Partner of KPMG and Yoke Wang Tok, Former Senior Advisor to the IMF Executive Director representing ASEAN, Nepal, Fiji and Tonga and former Principal Economist, Monetary Authority of Singapore: This report aims to provide an independent view of how the Fund is discharging its multilateral surveillance responsibilities, in particular its contribution to global financial stability and crisis prevention, working in coordination with other relevant international groupings/institutions such as the FSB and BIS. As we emerge from the global financial crisis (GFC), the Fund has regained much of its credibility and relevance. The GFC caught many, including the IMF, by surprise. Since then, the Fund has done considerable self-analysis and taken active steps to strengthen its surveillance and policy advice and to improve traction with policy makers. The IEO report on the Fund’s performance in the run-up to the financial and economic crisis identified various shortcomings that needed to be addressed. One of its key findings was the inability of the Fund to connect-the dots, to deliver hard-hitting messages and the difficulty experienced by the Fund in thinking beyond mainstream/official views. Many of the IEO’s findings have relevance to this review.